Posted on 05/17/2022 7:53:39 AM PDT by Kaslin
A growing number of scientists seem finally ready to at least include intelligent design within the ‘range of views’ allowed to be heard.
At first glance, the Potential and Limitations of Evolutionary Processes conference in Israel last week, which I attended, looked like any other scientific meeting on evolution, with talks by highly-credentialed scientists from institutions such as the Technical University of Munich, Cambridge, and the Weizmann Institute. But a closer look at the list of speakers shows that this one was different; it gave a platform to numerous notable proponents of intelligent design.
The conference included chemistry Nobel prize winners Ada Yonath and Sir John Walker, and numerous well-known evolutionary theorists such as University of Chicago molecular biologist James Shapiro and Georgia Tech biophysicist Jeremy England. But this time four or five intelligent design scientists were also invited, including Michael Behe of Lehigh University.
Most, but not all, avoided mentioning design explicitly, but still emphasized the “limitations” of evolutionary processes. Even Rice University chemist James Tour (who considers himself “agnostic” toward intelligent design) argued that origin-of-life researchers have deceived the public into believing that we are close to understanding how life formed, when we are not.
As stated on the conference web page, “the main goal of this unique interdisciplinary, international conference is to bring together scientists and scholars who hold a range of views on the potential and possible limitations of chemical and biological processes in evolution.” The organizers attempted, to a large degree successfully, to create an atmosphere of mutual respect between those who emphasized the “potential” of evolutionary processes, and those who emphasized their “limitations.”
Until recently, intelligent design has been considered an untouchable topic in mainstream scientific circles, where it’s considered axiomatic that everything must be explainable in terms of the unintelligent forces of nature, no matter how implausible and incomplete our current explanations may be. This axiom has worked well in other areas of science, but the problems of explaining the origin and evolution of life without design are inherently much more difficult than other scientific problems (for reasons which are obvious and outlined in my video, “Why Evolution is Different“).
For this reason, a growing number of scientists seem finally ready to at least include intelligent design within the “range of views” allowed to be heard. The meeting in Israel represented an important step in this direction and shows that mainstream science can ignore the obvious for a long time, but not forever.
If you need further evidence that intelligent design is finally being taken more seriously, look at the long list of distinguished scientists endorsing Stephen Meyer’s 2021 book “Return of the God Hypothesis.” Physics Nobel prize winner Brian Josephson said the book “makes it clear that far from being an unscientific claim, intelligent design is valid science.” Another endorser is Brazilian chemist Marcos Eberlin, whose own book “Foresight: How the Chemistry of Life Reveals Planning and Purpose,” which promotes intelligent design, carries the endorsements of three Nobel prize winners.
Of course, you shouldn’t judge a scientific theory by the number of distinguished scientists or Nobel laureates who support it, and certainly scientists who advocate intelligent design are still only a growing minority. But you should judge a scientific theory by its merits, and you don’t have to be a distinguished scientist to understand the merits of intelligent design. In fact, many already do.
“Michael Behe’s book Darwin’s Black Box”
I e-mailed Professor Behe with the question, are molecular machines an organic equivalent to nanites?
He answered in the affirmative.
Dr.Chuck Missler also has a commentary of Genesis that is mostly deep science that covers the scientif proofs that disprove all theories of evolution.
The story of the Big Bang requires more faith than the story of Creation.
Why? He's omnipresent.
There are over 6,000 genetic diseases known so far to medicine. These result in shortened lifespans, immense pain and suffering, and countless ruined lives both for the patients and their caregivers. How can this be explained by any kind of compassionate intelligent design?
12 posted on 5/17/2022, 8:28:29 AM by Dave Wright
To: Dave Wright
It can’t.
13 posted on 5/17/2022, 8:35:14 AM by ComputerGuy (Heavily-medicated for your protection)
/\
Bait n switch straw Man , shame on both of you /-).
God made everything
Man chose to break everything
Two different subjects.
would it be seen to have tree rings?
= = =
I pondered this same question on a visit to the Bristle Cone Pines.
Then wondered was Adam created fully grown, or as a Zygote?
He had stuff to do, a universe to create. That was the speed He chose to operate at.
EVERYTHING that we see, hear, touch, smell, and witness, indicates that, none of it was by accident or created by chaotic theories. Even the atom and sub-atomic particles, and energy (in all forms), indicate that, there is intelligence behind it all.
If one looks out in the universe, what may seem chaotic organization, all has a design behind it.
Then, there is DNA, where no chaotic theory or accident of nature, could explain the fantastic composition that exists within. It’s unimaginable that nature b itself could create a tiny microscopic living cell with chromosomes and genes, which if allowed to mature, creates an entire human being, capable of looking back at itself and wonder about how and why.
The intelligence which created humans and all living things, and the universe to live in, has to be thousands if not millions of times more intelligent than us mere insignifacnt humans.
There is a kitchen sink in your house, and there is a toilet - intelligent design.
There was no Bait n switch. You brought your own straw Man.
If design is so “Intelligent”, why design 350, 000 different species of beetles? Wouldn’t 100, 000 be enough?
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence....
well, if you think that the length of God’s day is the same as the length of man’s day—then yes there is a problem. However, if you think that that the length of God’s day is not the same as the length of man’s day—then there is no problem.
The subject was
creation
Not
disease
Bait n switch it was.
I pointed out those are 2 different subjects that were CONflated into 1
Aka
Bait and switch
and now you add obfuscation
Double shame on you.
He chose to come down from Heaven in the form of a man during those 3 short decades. He could have chosen to zip around the universe at well past the speed of light if He wanted to, during that creative process. I present evidence that He did.
To the Lord a day
2 Peter 3:8 one day is as a thousand years with the Lord, and a thousand years as one day.
You can ask him why in a couple of days...
It cannot be explained by a remote, handsoff intelligent design, but can be explained by theistic intelligent design by including the concepts of the infinite mind and free will. What seems “evil” to us (natural diseases) is part of a divine pre-ordainment.
One of the best book I’ve read on the subject is Stephen Meyer’s “Signature in the Cell”.
A real tour-de-force in making the case for ID using scientific arguments and known facts and not relying on any religious arguments.
It changed my belief regarding the origin of life to where I now consider ID the most plausible explanation, while still remaining open to anything better that might come along.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.